The attacks of 9/11 are still in question. Many remain skeptical about what happened that day and who is responsible. Bin Laden and al Qaeda? Or someone else? The official version, presented by the mainstream media, is based on explanations of US authorities and the "9/11 Commission Report", finished in 2004. On the contrary there still exist several alternative theories, a number of them reasonable, others merely absurd. Besides any theories there are proven facts. Seven of them shall be presented here, with their respective sources, researchable for everyone. Many details are new. Most of the sources cited here were published in 2011 or 2012. The intention is to promote an open and fair discussion of these facts.

In the days leading to 9/11 observers see significant insider trading at the stock markets - a strong indication of foreknowledge. Certain people are betting on falling stock prices of companies, that will suffer from the attacks later on. Example: The bets on falling stock prices of the two involved airlines ("United Airlines" and "American Airlines") generate a return of over 400 percent in just one week - in total about 16 million Dollars.

Official explanation: All these trades had harmless reasons. There wasn´t any insider trading regarding 9/11. The investors had no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.

Problem: Financial experts from the University of Zurich, Switzerland, published a detailed study in 2011, proving that insider trading occurred shortly before 9/11. On the other hand the details of the investigation of the Security and Exchange Commission on this issue have never been published. The names of the individual investors remain secret till today.

On 9/11 two towers of the World Trade Center in New York are hit by planes and collapse later on. But in the course of the day a third skyscraper, the over 170 m high WTC 7, also collapses, totally symmetrical, precisely in its own footprint - without being hit by an airplane.

Official explanation: According to the final report of investigation on this, published in 2008, the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by fires, which were started by falling debris of the two other collapsing towers.

Problem: Never before or after 9/11 did a steel framed high-rise building collapse in this special way because of fire. Also a damaged building, especially one being higher than 100 m, never collapses totally symmetrical, precisely in its own footprint. When it falls, then it naturally tends to the one particular side weakening first. Exception: the building is crashed by controlled demolition. Meanwhile there are substantial indications for this suggestion. A group of scientists around the American physicist Steven Jones and the Danish chemist Niels Harrit has proven the existence of a highly effective explosive in the dust of the crashed towers. An international association of more than 1.500 professional architects and engineers demands a new investigation of the attacks in this respect.

In total 4 planes are hijacked and crashed on 9/11. None of them is intercepted by a fighter jet.

Official explanation: The military didn´t expect the suicidal hijacking of inbound flights. Therefore the air defense had to be improvised on that day.

Problem: The US air defense tested the hijacking of inbound flights by suicide terrorists in several exercises before 9/11. The air defense hadn´t to be improvised, it followed tested protocols. Nevertheless both fighter squadrons starting while the attacks were directed to the wrong direction exactly in the important minutes. By whom and why is still not investigated. The tape recordings of the communication between fighter pilots and air defense command while the flights were deleted or lost after 9/11.

Precisely on the morning of 9/11 a wide ranging exercise of the air defense is taking place. It´s name: Vigilant Guardian. Part of the exercise is a virtual hijacking, to be tested exactly while the real hijackings occur. In this same hour a simulation team inserts virtual radar signals on the screens of the air defense, while the military officers there are trying to react on the real hijackings. Also the air defense can´t see the radar signal of the first hijacked plane, although it´s clearly visible at the same time on the radar screens of the civilian air traffic controllers not taking part in the exercise.
Official explanation: None, just the general statement that the exercise had not obstructed the reaction of the air defense.

Problem: The air defense has completely failed on 9/11  not once, not twice, but four times in a row. The role of the exercise in this failure is still unclear and was not part of the official investigation.

The third hijacked plane on 9/11 takes off from Washington and will be directed into the Pentagon right there. The distance between airport and target ist just a few miles. Nevertheless the plane starts flying about 250 miles to the west before it turns to the opposite direction. Exactly at this turning point is a small zone of poor radar coverage, a so called radar gap. That´s why the plane is dissapearing for a while from the screens of the air defense. Right before the Pentagon the plane is maneuvred in a further very precise and skillful way: it makes a sharp 330 degree turn while loosing altitude extremely fast at the same time and than crashes with top speed exactly in the first floor of the Pentagon.
Official explanation: None.

Problem: The following questions need to be adressed: How should the alleged hijackers have known, that the radar gap existed, where it was located, and when they would have arrived there? What sense did it make for them to fly a detour of roughly 500 miles? Finally: The huge skills of the alleged pilot, whose flight school teacher said he couldn´t even fly a Cessna safely before 9/11, appear almost incredible. All anomalies mentioned could easily be explained, if the plane was remotely controlled. But this was never officially investigated.
Further information:

The alleged hijackers with Mohammed Atta at the top have never been conclusively forensically identified. The remains of most passengers of the four flights were identified by there DNA found at the crash sites. But not the remains of the 19 alleged terrorists. Allegedly their relatives hadn´t provided DNA samples for comparison to the FBI´s investigators. Furthermore the flight manifests were only partially published and are inconsistent with the claimed hijackers.

After 9/11 no one claimed responsibility for the attacks. Nobody announced any political demands.

Official explanation: Osama bin Laden has claimed responsibility for 9/11 in a video.

Problem: Immediately after the attacks Bin Laden made it clear several times that he had nothing to do with 9/11. The video where he allegedly claims responsibility was published only three months after the attacks  by the Pentagon. An independent translation, made on behalf of German public television, concluded the video had been mistranslated in the critical statements. Furthermore the FBI admitted in 2006 that it had no reliable evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. His responsibility for the attacks remains an unproven allegation till today.
Further information:

The journalists in the mainstream media are not more ignorant than other people. But they´re also not more courageous. Imagine you were a journalist for a big TV station and would get to know these facts  the scientific proof for insider trading before 9/11, the indications for a controlled demolition of the towers, the lack of evidence for the connection of Bin Laden to the plot. What do you do? You know for sure: once you question the official theory seriously, you will be named a conspiracy theorist. You also know: at this moment your career will actually be over. Colleagues and bosses will seperate from you. Possibly you even lose your job. Is this worth it? Do you want to risk getting in serious financial trouble, just because of a story? Or wouldn´t you rather like to wait, till one of your many colleagues dares this first step? And then follow?

Such thoughts are unpleasant for everybody. For a journalist they mean that he accepts to give up on his professional ethos just for material safety. Nobody likes to think about such things for a long time. One rather tries to avoid this inner conflict. That´s why the journalist starts looking for evidence supporting the official theory. He doesn´t want to investigate the alternative theories  he wants to refute them. If they´re wrong, then of course everything would be fine again. As strange as it might seem: There´s a natural tendency to repress all facts contradicting the official theory. One doesn´t want to deal with them. That´s the situation today.

My name is Paul Schreyer, I´m a freelance journalist for the German magazines "Telepolis", "Hintergrund" and "Ossietzky", as well as author of the book "Inside 9/11". On 9/11 I was 24 years old. Like almost everybody else I had at first no doubt about the official explanations regarding the alleged responsibility of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Only a few weeks after the attacks I read by coincidence in the internet some facts that hadn´t been mentioned on TV or in the Newspaper. Facts that made me start thinking.

When the 9/11 Commission Report was published in 2004, I bought a copy and participated in internet debates. In 2005 I started to work journalistically on the topic. I wrote the nonfictional appendix to the German novel "Die Legende", which tells a story about 9/11, and worked on essays focussing on certain parts of the attacks: the failed air defense, the insider trading, the identification of the alleged hijackers as well as their connection to intelligence agencies.

So I was clearly very much critical of the official theory then. Nonetheless I was also very critical for example of the popular theory about the controlled demolition of the towers. This changed only in 2012, after I took the time to examine the evidence of Danish scientist Niels Harrit. This again led me to the conclusion that it might be useful to present some substantial but still not very well known facts about 9/11 in a short and easily understandable way.